Girlfriend and cyclist accident
Discussion
gazza285 said:
They obviously were not 50m away if one of them hit the vehicle, it takes over eleven seconds to travel 50m at 10mph.
I've seen a video of a cyclist blissfully riding into a parked car that had been there for hours and was obvious to everyone. He wasn't paying attention and just didn't see it. Rode straight into an obvious car. (I'd show it but it's a friends private one so I can't).So no, it's not "obviously not 50m away".
A500leroy said:
Yes it is normal for claims to take this long to come through. Has the cyclist/your girlfriend got witnesses? May be important, i mean for all you know the cyclist ran into the back of the car which would make the claim fail.
Girlfriend had 1 witness in the car and cyclist had potentially 1 witnesses.I don't know exactly the order of the cyclists but at least one of them was Infront of the cyclist that hit the car yet didn't hit the car so wouldn't have seen the collision. I don't know if the 3rd was in front of the collision or behind it.
Edited by KaiserDahms on Wednesday 8th July 19:05
KaiserDahms said:
DeWar said:
Medically it’s perfectly possible to suffer injuries that have a delayed symptom onset. Normal XR’s don’t mean there’s been no injury, rather that there were no broken bones (though fractures being missed in A&E only to be discovered days/weeks later happens more often than you’d like to imagine).
The classic example is the much maligned “whiplash” - which very, very commonly manifests as pain the day following the accident - which is only partly the result of cash hungry malingerers trying it on. Inflammation can take time to build up in response to the initial injury whilst adrenalin from the shock of the impact can mask initial pain. Whether any of that actually warrants compo in most cases is a different matter.
If a claim has been made then it seems almost certain that a doctor, either in A&E or the cyclist’s own GP will have documented some sort of injury. It’s hard to imagine the case could arise otherwise. Having said that, your description of events makes it hard to imagine that life changing injuries mandating a huge payout could have occurred. Then again, luck plays a part - break a bone in the wrist of an insurance salesman and it’s no biggie. Break the same bone belonging to a world renowned concert pianist and it’s a different story resulting in mucho compo.
Cheers, I take it that they'd check to see if injuries would be related and likely caused by this?. The classic example is the much maligned “whiplash” - which very, very commonly manifests as pain the day following the accident - which is only partly the result of cash hungry malingerers trying it on. Inflammation can take time to build up in response to the initial injury whilst adrenalin from the shock of the impact can mask initial pain. Whether any of that actually warrants compo in most cases is a different matter.
If a claim has been made then it seems almost certain that a doctor, either in A&E or the cyclist’s own GP will have documented some sort of injury. It’s hard to imagine the case could arise otherwise. Having said that, your description of events makes it hard to imagine that life changing injuries mandating a huge payout could have occurred. Then again, luck plays a part - break a bone in the wrist of an insurance salesman and it’s no biggie. Break the same bone belonging to a world renowned concert pianist and it’s a different story resulting in mucho compo.
7 months is not a long time after an event for a claim to be made. An adult has up to 3 years to issue Court proceedings.
The value of the claim will be of no concern to your girlfriend. Her insurers will be dealing with it. Similarly, whether the claim is dealt with on a 100% liability basis or a split liability basis, she will still lose her NCB and have to register a claim.
Is she really sure she isn't at fault? I doubt it. Would she be willing to attend Court to explain how she turned across the path of a cyclist and how that couldn't possibly be he fault?
Just let her insurers deal with it. That's what's she's there for.
Why are you so concerned that the cyclist is bringing a claim for compensation? Is it jealousy? That they're going to get a few grand?
Fastdruid said:
gazza285 said:
They obviously were not 50m away if one of them hit the vehicle, it takes over eleven seconds to travel 50m at 10mph.
I've seen a video of a cyclist blissfully riding into a parked car that had been there for hours and was obvious to everyone. He wasn't paying attention and just didn't see it. Rode straight into an obvious car. (I'd show it but it's a friends private one so I can't).So no, it's not "obviously not 50m away".
KungFuPanda said:
Of course they would. Why would they not? An independent medical expert will be instructed to prepare a medical report to support the cyclist's claim for personal injury. In doing so they will review contemporaneous medical records such as those from A&E and doctors etc etc.
7 months is not a long time after an event for a claim to be made. An adult has up to 3 years to issue Court proceedings.
The value of the claim will be of no concern to your girlfriend. Her insurers will be dealing with it. Similarly, whether the claim is dealt with on a 100% liability basis or a split liability basis, she will still lose her NCB and have to register a claim.
Is she really sure she isn't at fault? I doubt it. Would she be willing to attend Court to explain how she turned across the path of a cyclist and how that couldn't possibly be he fault?
Just let her insurers deal with it. That's what's she's there for.
Why are you so concerned that the cyclist is bringing a claim for compensation? Is it jealousy? That they're going to get a few grand?
I'm concerned because my girlfriend is upset about this and is stressed out having to dig out details from 7 months ago.7 months is not a long time after an event for a claim to be made. An adult has up to 3 years to issue Court proceedings.
The value of the claim will be of no concern to your girlfriend. Her insurers will be dealing with it. Similarly, whether the claim is dealt with on a 100% liability basis or a split liability basis, she will still lose her NCB and have to register a claim.
Is she really sure she isn't at fault? I doubt it. Would she be willing to attend Court to explain how she turned across the path of a cyclist and how that couldn't possibly be he fault?
Just let her insurers deal with it. That's what's she's there for.
Why are you so concerned that the cyclist is bringing a claim for compensation? Is it jealousy? That they're going to get a few grand?
I've already told her that worst case scenario is she'd have to pay her excess and get a rise in premiums when due for renewal. If there were any criminal proceedings it would've been done at the time.
If they have an injury from this then I think they should get compensation for it. Was curious about how the process works and what would happen from a claim perspective.
KaiserDahms said:
KungFuPanda said:
Of course they would. Why would they not? An independent medical expert will be instructed to prepare a medical report to support the cyclist's claim for personal injury. In doing so they will review contemporaneous medical records such as those from A&E and doctors etc etc.
7 months is not a long time after an event for a claim to be made. An adult has up to 3 years to issue Court proceedings.
The value of the claim will be of no concern to your girlfriend. Her insurers will be dealing with it. Similarly, whether the claim is dealt with on a 100% liability basis or a split liability basis, she will still lose her NCB and have to register a claim.
Is she really sure she isn't at fault? I doubt it. Would she be willing to attend Court to explain how she turned across the path of a cyclist and how that couldn't possibly be he fault?
Just let her insurers deal with it. That's what's she's there for.
Why are you so concerned that the cyclist is bringing a claim for compensation? Is it jealousy? That they're going to get a few grand?
I'm concerned because my girlfriend is upset about this and is stressed out having to dig out details from 7 months ago.7 months is not a long time after an event for a claim to be made. An adult has up to 3 years to issue Court proceedings.
The value of the claim will be of no concern to your girlfriend. Her insurers will be dealing with it. Similarly, whether the claim is dealt with on a 100% liability basis or a split liability basis, she will still lose her NCB and have to register a claim.
Is she really sure she isn't at fault? I doubt it. Would she be willing to attend Court to explain how she turned across the path of a cyclist and how that couldn't possibly be he fault?
Just let her insurers deal with it. That's what's she's there for.
Why are you so concerned that the cyclist is bringing a claim for compensation? Is it jealousy? That they're going to get a few grand?
I've already told her that worst case scenario is she'd have to pay her excess and get a rise in premiums when due for renewal. If there were any criminal proceedings it would've been done at the time.
If they have an injury from this then I think they should get compensation for it. Was curious about how the process works and what would happen from a claim perspective.
Just give her insurers all the details and let them deal with it. Once the details of the third party have been passed onto them, she shouldn't have any more direct contact with them.
Regarding fault, your girlfriend turned across a lane and it wasn't clear to do so. In mitigation, you've got "not paying attention", but that would mean a steady course and speed - so she should have been out of the way before conflict. I think the best you can hope for is 50:50, depending on the distances and speeds involved.
If they were cycling at 10 mph, frankly, they could stop on a dime. I'm pretty sure you'd notice a car, even if you weren't entirely paying attention (unless looking behind you or something - but that might be a reasonable check to ensure you're not about to be left hooked, ironic as it may be).
But I'd suggest that the cyclists were somewhat closer and travelling somewhat faster than stated - remember, "objects in mirror are closer than they appear".
If they were cycling at 10 mph, frankly, they could stop on a dime. I'm pretty sure you'd notice a car, even if you weren't entirely paying attention (unless looking behind you or something - but that might be a reasonable check to ensure you're not about to be left hooked, ironic as it may be).
But I'd suggest that the cyclists were somewhat closer and travelling somewhat faster than stated - remember, "objects in mirror are closer than they appear".
anonymous said:
[redacted]
But also need to know the road markings for the cycle lane. Does it have give way workings for the crossover. If so then cyclists should have stopped before riding in to the OPs other half.We should all be worried about false claims for compensation as we are all end up paying increased premiums to cover any false claims. However its not surprising a claim arrives late, however the fact they cant get the date right makes you wonder what else they cant get right.
Just leave it to insurers to sort and don’t worry about it. This is routine for them.
She was insured at the time, so is fully covered. The insurers may contact her again to get her side of what happened, if they haven’t already, and based on that and other information they’ll decide how they’re going to handle the injury claim.
Only thing I’m unsure of is whether she would need to declare as a claim on future policies. I’m going to assume yes since claims (such as this one) don’t necessarily have to involve vehicular damage, nor do they necessarily have had to result from the policyholder making the claim themselves. It might be worth speaking to the insurance company to find out for sure, and what the claim date would be for the purposes of future declarations - i.e. the date of the incident or the actual injury claim submission.
She was insured at the time, so is fully covered. The insurers may contact her again to get her side of what happened, if they haven’t already, and based on that and other information they’ll decide how they’re going to handle the injury claim.
Only thing I’m unsure of is whether she would need to declare as a claim on future policies. I’m going to assume yes since claims (such as this one) don’t necessarily have to involve vehicular damage, nor do they necessarily have had to result from the policyholder making the claim themselves. It might be worth speaking to the insurance company to find out for sure, and what the claim date would be for the purposes of future declarations - i.e. the date of the incident or the actual injury claim submission.
I'm not sure what the OP wants to know.
Whether it's normal to hear after 7 months doesn't seem relevant. If they cyclist's side has evidence of injuries, they are long term - ie they are still suffering - then it seems to be above board. As for liability; from what I can understand, the cyclist was travelling in a cycle lane that was separated from general traffic and the OP's girlfriend turned right across their path and a collision occurred. If that's a correct interpretation, then the insurance company will pay up without any argument, if the evidence for injury is strong. One might well assume they have two witnesses. They are not independent, but they are witnesses. If she has an NCB with claims protection then there might not be a premium hike, but read the small print first.
That's from what I understand from the explanation.
Whether it's normal to hear after 7 months doesn't seem relevant. If they cyclist's side has evidence of injuries, they are long term - ie they are still suffering - then it seems to be above board. As for liability; from what I can understand, the cyclist was travelling in a cycle lane that was separated from general traffic and the OP's girlfriend turned right across their path and a collision occurred. If that's a correct interpretation, then the insurance company will pay up without any argument, if the evidence for injury is strong. One might well assume they have two witnesses. They are not independent, but they are witnesses. If she has an NCB with claims protection then there might not be a premium hike, but read the small print first.
That's from what I understand from the explanation.
A500leroy said:
Yes it is normal for claims to take this long to come through. Has the cyclist/your girlfriend got witnesses? May be important, i mean for all you know the cyclist ran into the back of the car which would make the claim fail.
Two of them had no problem avoiding the car. The 3rd one can't have been paying attention. Their own stupid fault.Derek Smith said:
I'm not sure what the OP wants to know.
Whether it's normal to hear after 7 months doesn't seem relevant. If they cyclist's side has evidence of injuries, they are long term - ie they are still suffering - then it seems to be above board. As for liability; from what I can understand, the cyclist was travelling in a cycle lane that was separated from general traffic and the OP's girlfriend turned right across their path and a collision occurred. If that's a correct interpretation, then the insurance company will pay up without any argument, if the evidence for injury is strong. One might well assume they have two witnesses. They are not independent, but they are witnesses. If she has an NCB with claims protection then there might not be a premium hike, but read the small print first.
That's from what I understand from the explanation.
Might be best if the OP bought his girlfriend one of those devices with a connection to that interweb thing, taught her how to type and then she could post the question on here herself, instead of doing everything secondhand!Whether it's normal to hear after 7 months doesn't seem relevant. If they cyclist's side has evidence of injuries, they are long term - ie they are still suffering - then it seems to be above board. As for liability; from what I can understand, the cyclist was travelling in a cycle lane that was separated from general traffic and the OP's girlfriend turned right across their path and a collision occurred. If that's a correct interpretation, then the insurance company will pay up without any argument, if the evidence for injury is strong. One might well assume they have two witnesses. They are not independent, but they are witnesses. If she has an NCB with claims protection then there might not be a premium hike, but read the small print first.
That's from what I understand from the explanation.
What is it with people?
It's a good job I don't get grumpy!
zzrman said:
A500leroy said:
Yes it is normal for claims to take this long to come through. Has the cyclist/your girlfriend got witnesses? May be important, i mean for all you know the cyclist ran into the back of the car which would make the claim fail.
Two of them had no problem avoiding the car. The 3rd one can't have been paying attention. Their own stupid fault.
KaiserDahms said:
On that road the cyclist could be doing 20 mph and your description indicates that you/girlfriend think it is OK to pull out and rely on other people slowing down to avoid hitting you. It isn't and is the old DWDCA and the current "driving without consideration for other road users", try doing it in front of a Police car.
She needs to stop grumbling, learn to be more observant, and let the insurance company deal with it.
zzrman said:
Two of them had no problem avoiding the car. The 3rd one can't have been paying attention. Their own stupid fault.
Without actually knowing what happened, including the positioning, speed and timing of all involved, there’s obviously no way that conclusion can be drawn.OP, as above, the Claimant (cyclist) has 3 years to issue a claim at the county court, assuming the cyclist is an adult with mental capacity [
So 7 months is well in time. Your insurers might well ask why it took that long to be presented, but the answer might be that the cyclist realised any ongoing symptoms were more long term than first envisaged. Or she may have received one of those cold calls. Or genuinely didn’t know she could look to claim until someone told her (cold call or otherwise).
The claim will consist of (1) liability and (2) quantum. Your girlfriend can comment on (1) by giving her version of events. No one here can comment on liability either way, but it does sound as though it will go against your girlfriend (either 100% or a lower percentage if the cyclist should have avoided but was riding too fast/on their phone/not keeping a proper lookout, or had no helmet that may have prevented/reduced any injury to the head etc.) and would then be classed as an at fault claim. Your insurer should consider all evidence (e.g. accounts by Claimant and Defendant (the latter being your girlfriend), any witnesses, contemporaneous accounts given to the police etc.). Your girlfriend has insurance to cover things like this, so just let them deal. By all means, your girlfriend can give her version, dispute the version of the cyclist and/or witnesses, raise queries with her insurers, complain if she doesn’t agree, but this may all just add to her stress, make it more protracted and could end up costing more in time and money.
Assuming the injuries are minor, but serious enough to not be small claims track, it will be a Portal claim and dealt with predominantly online. The Portal covers claims in the “fast-track” up to £25k - this is comprised of injuries and financial losses, so if the cyclist was riding a £10k carbon bike and suffered £15k lost earnings due to her inability to work without any sick pay, the injuries would likely be a small part of the compensation and take it over the limit. This is obviously an extreme example.
If it is dealt with in the Portal, costs are fixed and relatively low: about £500 to the cyclist’s representatives. It is supposed to make the process swifter and cheaper. Your girlfriend’s insurers have to respond to accept liability within 15 working days to keep it in the Portal, but even then fixed costs are not that high (again, relatively speaking).
The injury/losses/value side of things all relate to quantum. Your girlfriend is very unlikely to be able to have any view on this. Her insurers should satisfy themselves that appropriate evidence (likely to include a medico-legal report - an independent report specifically commissioned for the claim, rather than from any clinician involved in the assessment/treatment side of things) is presented and “causation” is established, ie it is more likely than not that any injuries / financial losses claimed were as a result of the collision, as opposed to any other cause. Medico-legal reports, especially at the likely level here, can be of mixed quality, but provided there is nothing standing out as obvious fraud/exaggeration, it’s likely the evidence would be accepted assuming the injuries are considered proportionate to what actually happened.
Just to add, if it is a Portal claim, the likelihood is your girlfriend’s insurer will not get anything from the police before the 15 working day period to accept liability expires. It is then likely they will just base their decision on the version advanced by the Defendant in the Claim Notification Form, your girlfriend’s version of events, and possibly viewing Google Street View to see if there are any give way lines or similar things that may be relevant.
They may be presented with other evidence too, although it would have to reach them quickly if they want to ‘benefit’ from possibly limiting the claim to Portal costs.
They may be presented with other evidence too, although it would have to reach them quickly if they want to ‘benefit’ from possibly limiting the claim to Portal costs.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff